On 2012-12-6 9:26, Tang Chen wrote: > On 12/05/2012 11:43 PM, Jiang Liu wrote: >> If we make "movablecore_map" take precedence over "movablecore/kernelcore", >> the logic could be simplified. I think it's not so attractive to support >> both "movablecore_map" and "movablecore/kernelcore" at the same time. > > Hi Liu, > > Thanks for you advice. :) > > Memory hotplug needs different support on different hardware. We are > trying to figure out a way to satisfy as many users as we can. > Since it is a little difficult, it may take sometime. :) > > But I still think we need a boot option to support it. Just a metter of > how to make it easier to use. :) > > Thanks. :) > >> >> On 11/23/2012 06:44 PM, Tang Chen wrote: >>> If kernelcore or movablecore is specified at the same time >>> with movablecore_map, movablecore_map will have higher >>> priority to be satisfied. >>> This patch will make find_zone_movable_pfns_for_nodes() >>> calculate zone_movable_pfn[] with the limit from >>> zone_movable_limit[]. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Tang Chen >>> Reviewed-by: Wen Congyang >>> Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan >>> Tested-by: Lin Feng >>> --- >>> mm/page_alloc.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- >>> 1 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c >>> index f23d76a..05bafbb 100644 >>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c >>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c >>> @@ -4800,12 +4800,25 @@ static void __init find_zone_movable_pfns_for_nodes(void) >>> required_kernelcore = max(required_kernelcore, corepages); >>> } >>> >>> - /* If kernelcore was not specified, there is no ZONE_MOVABLE */ >>> - if (!required_kernelcore) >>> + /* >>> + * No matter kernelcore/movablecore was limited or not, movable_zone >>> + * should always be set to a usable zone index. >>> + */ >>> + find_usable_zone_for_movable(); >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * If neither kernelcore/movablecore nor movablecore_map is specified, >>> + * there is no ZONE_MOVABLE. But if movablecore_map is specified, the >>> + * start pfn of ZONE_MOVABLE has been stored in zone_movable_limit[]. >>> + */ >>> + if (!required_kernelcore) { >>> + if (movablecore_map.nr_map) >>> + memcpy(zone_movable_pfn, zone_movable_limit, >>> + sizeof(zone_movable_pfn)); >>> goto out; >>> + } >>> >>> /* usable_startpfn is the lowest possible pfn ZONE_MOVABLE can be at */ >>> - find_usable_zone_for_movable(); >>> usable_startpfn = arch_zone_lowest_possible_pfn[movable_zone]; >>> >>> restart: >>> @@ -4833,10 +4846,24 @@ restart: >>> for_each_mem_pfn_range(i, nid,&start_pfn,&end_pfn, NULL) { >>> unsigned long size_pages; >>> >>> + /* >>> + * Find more memory for kernelcore in >>> + * [zone_movable_pfn[nid], zone_movable_limit[nid]). >>> + */ >>> start_pfn = max(start_pfn, zone_movable_pfn[nid]); >>> if (start_pfn>= end_pfn) >>> continue; >>> >>> + if (zone_movable_limit[nid]) { >>> + end_pfn = min(end_pfn, zone_movable_limit[nid]); >>> + /* No range left for kernelcore in this node */ >>> + if (start_pfn>= end_pfn) { >>> + zone_movable_pfn[nid] = >>> + zone_movable_limit[nid]; >>> + break; >>> + } >>> + } Hi Tang, I just to remove the above logic, so the implementation will be greatly simplified. Please refer to the attachment. Regards! Gerry >>> + >>> /* Account for what is only usable for kernelcore */ >>> if (start_pfn< usable_startpfn) { >>> unsigned long kernel_pages; >>> @@ -4896,12 +4923,12 @@ restart: >>> if (usable_nodes&& required_kernelcore> usable_nodes) >>> goto restart; >>> >>> +out: >>> /* Align start of ZONE_MOVABLE on all nids to MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES */ >>> for (nid = 0; nid< MAX_NUMNODES; nid++) >>> zone_movable_pfn[nid] = >>> roundup(zone_movable_pfn[nid], MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES); >>> >>> -out: >>> /* restore the node_state */ >>> node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY] = saved_node_state; >>> } >>> >> >> > > > . >